"Mathematicians Make Sense of Chaos" is, in my opinion, the same as "Cancer Cured". Which cancer, at which stage, what method, on how many people, how, etc. etc. No matter how interesting the article (don't get me wrong, this IS a very interesting article) you are misdirecting the readers and that's not cool I think.
Presumably that would be in the article body, which can't all fit in the title.
I'd like to see if it's it was tested in humans/mice/vitro, many articles with a title that says "cure" are actually articles about a promising in vitro experiment.
Also if they had a control group[1], because there are a lot of cures that are just an optimistic view of bad methodology. I think most of the times it's not on purpose, they just skip a few steps to make the research faster, but the steps are there to avoid repeating error detected in previos studies.
[1] Preregistered double blind randomized controlled clinical trials that are good enough to be published in a serious peer review journal, or it didn't happen.